The war in Iraq is the worst form of treachery that has been committed in the last half century. I have read the information and propaganda of both sides and have come to certain conclusions that my countrymen refuse to see.
The American public does not think they are in error. In fact support and opposition for this war are split almost down the middle. It is most prudent to consider the mentality behind support for the war. The supporters honestly believe in their minds that their country has gone to war in the interest of good. They have complete faith in their president and do not believe that he would be capable of lying to the public. They hold too much faith in the elite.
My rationale for coming to a conclusion:
The president specifically stated that the reason for going to war was because Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction. We must throw out all other variables since this reason is the absolute core. The population is ignorant of Iraq and knows nothing of their weapons capabilities. Therefore, they must rely on the information presented to them by their leaders. They simply have no other means of obtaining the information. The president employed many other scaremongering tactics to heighten the public’s fear of these supposed weapons. He said they could be deployed within 45 minutes and could possibly hit the United States. He said that Saddam also had possible links to Al Qaeda which are also, suspicious at best.
This information has so far proven to be false. Therefore, the logical man would admit his mistake and apologize. Yet, the president has not done this. What the President has done is divert the attention from his core reason to other variables. He stated that Iraq had programs of weapons of mass destruction which is not the same as actually having weapons. He says that Saddam was a dangerous dictator which is true yet was not presented as the core reason for war. Therefore, the message that is being sent is that it is ok to state a specific reason for an action but then change the rational after the fact. Thus the child could say that he received an A in math class before the A had actually been received. He could then support his statements by saying that he had every intention of receiving an A and all available information at the time pointed to you actually receiving an A. If the A is not received, then the pupil’s “intelligence” was simply false at that time and is no fault of his own for making such a false declaration. This A which the student desired had been talked about with his teachers and classmates and he had even studied once in a while. Yet, the fact remains that an A was not achieved. He had every intention of the receiving an A, and therefore, under “Bushian” logic the parents should let the child off without any further questioning. Since the child had every intention of receiving an A and it was talked about, then the child should not be admonished for not actually receiving this top grade. Children, this is a great way to obtain the respect of your parents and can be employed in many situations.
If you wish to go drinking on a Friday night, then just tell your parents that you are going to the library. When your parents discover that in fact you actually went drinking, you could always cover your tracks by stating that you had every intention of going to the library. You talked about going to the library with your friends, had every intention of reading books and all intelligence pointed to time spent in the library for the evening; however you simply could not find the library!
My second reason for opposing the war is that the United States took multilateral action without the support of the world community. The United States said that it had formed a coalition of the “willing,” which is true but if we look at the reasons why these countries were “willing,” then all becomes clear. These countries were willing because they know they would get substantial support from the United States in terms of money and other favors. The United States aligned countries that said they also had information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. I seriously doubt that countries’ such as Papua New Guinea has much of an intelligence structure. These small countries cannot afford a decent embassy in other countries and often resort to renting an apartment to act as an embassy and then sharing it with another country to split the cost. Therefore, how can these countries afford to send their spies into Iraq and develop detailed information about a country’s weapons in which they have no interest? These reasons simply put, debunk this coalition of the “willing.” If I were the smallest kid on the block you can be sure I would align myself with the most powerful bully. The bully might need my support at times to make his actions legitimate. Therefore, as the smallest kid, I can increase my prestige in the neighborhood, get some spending money and fear of the bully turning against me one day. All I have to do is support any actions the bully takes. I lose nothing!
Concerning France and their opposition to the war:
Many Americans became angry when France did not support America in the war. I feel I must remind the population that France is a sovereign country and allowed to do as they please. Further, France was a superpower long before America was discovered. They have a long tradition of colonization and know well the problems of invading foreign countries and trying to impose their own will. The Americans were angered by France’s failure to support America when America supported them during the World Wars. Americans have forgotten French support during the revolution. Without the help of the French (no matter how self serving since they hated the British) America would most likely exist. No matter how we like to think of how a bunch of rag tag militia men could defeat the British, we cannot forget how the military might of the French aided us during that time.
It is also wise to put ourselves in the position of the French president. Imagine that you yourself are the president of France. Your country and business leaders have many profitable contracts already established with Iraq. It is true Iraq was brutal but do not fail to take a look at how many American business operate in awful countries like Sudan in order to make a profit. Secondly, France has an enormous unstable Muslim population. To support a war against a Muslim country is to invite rioting and chaos in their country. Thirdly, we have to consider the benefits for France of joining this war. We are asking them to forgo their profitable contracts with Iraq and invite rioting in their country. What are the substantial gains for France in all this? These issues and president of the country, we must consider with great contemplation. Finally, there is the question of public support. If the majority of the public does not support or foray into other countries, then what can we as president possibly gain? We are not only inviting the previously mentioned public but asking to be removed from office by popular will. These are three negatives I as president would be reluctant to realize just to appease Americans. I believe the lesser danger would be to let them change the name of French Fries to “Freedom Fries.”
The division of the public:
The public does not think for themselves. They look to the leaders who have ambitions of their own to tell them how to think. In America we have two distinct political groups: the Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, it is by no mistake that we have two distinct opinions about the war instead of six. We have the “no blood for oil” campaign which is propagated by the Democrats and we have the WMD campaign which is fostered by the Republicans. People have the volition of choosing between these two groups but it is the rare occasio
n that a citizen will gather the facts himself since it would take much time and effort and then make a rational decision. It is much easier to take the passive role and believe whatever information comes through the television or daily newspaper. The problem with this is that these media outlets have political ambitions themselves. One must simply look to the owner and his beliefs to see which side the media in question will take. It is also human nature to give more consideration to the information that is heard first. This “first impression” is powerful and it often takes two to three times the exposure to opposite views to change this first impression.
It is most unlikely that citizens of any given country or conflict are able to see the “big picture.” We tend to focus and drown in the details. One cannot see the entirety of the mountain while standing upon it and analyzing the rocks. Therefore, since I do not live in America and try to see the mountain by reading as many newspapers throughout the world as possible. In this manner I am able to form the broadest opinion possible without having access to inside information or being a part of the “inner circle.”